Meet Kevin Faulconer, man of the people. He’s running glossy commercials about how he’ll be “a mayor for all of us” and talking as if he’ll be the guy who will focus on neighborhoods that “have been underserved by this city for too long.”

His website and ballot statement have been scrubbed of any unpleasant reminders that he is a Republican backed by San Diego’s traditional power brokers, and he just can’t stop reminding us that there is “no such thing as a Democratic or Republican pothole.”

Like the Republicans at the national level who have decided that they can claim poverty as an issue while refusing to raise the minimum wage, extend unemployment benefits, or stop cutting services to the poor, Faulconer seems to think that a couple visits south of the 8 and a new catch phrase will suffice to bring home the votes of naïve Democrats and Independents who will fall for his rhetorical head fake while failing to note that he opposes the prevailing wage, increasing the minimum wage, efforts to support affordable housing, bonds for infrastructure, and, of course, allowing working class communities of color to craft their own community plans if large corporate interests oppose them.

But that’s been the marketing plan all along. As I noted in my column a few weeks ago, “the entire strategy relies on tossing the actual history of San Diego down the memory hole and trying to sell enough gullible Democrats a version of San Diego based on doublethink and conservative mythology.”

Central to the doublethink in this election is Faulconer’s faux populism in which the life-long Republican who was hand-picked by San Diego’s power elite at a backroom meeting in La Jolla presents himself as a nonpartisan moderate who is independent of any special interests and will be a mayor for “all of us” who will serve all of our “neighborhoods.” The ugly fact behind the curtain is that nearly the entirety of Faucloner’s financial backing comes from the downtown insiders and corporate interests who have and will continue to fight a “neighborhoods first” agenda tooth and nail.

And, in their initial mailer, the Lincoln Club goes right for the jugular with precisely the kind of racist dog whistle attack I predicted in my first column after the primary when I wrote that, “The Lincoln Club will crank up their hate machine” and “remind you that David Alvarez is a ‘South of 8’ guy in as many ways as they can muster.” Thus, not surprisingly, the club’s first effort makes sure to tell you that Alvarez is “Not OUR mayor” and wants to find ways to take funds away from “most communities” and “give them to just three neighborhoods that he cares about most” (Southeast San Diego, City Heights, and San Ysidro). This is accompanied by a picture of a mostly full pie going to “David’s favorites” and a meager slice left for “your community.”

In yet another mailer we are greeted with a photo-shopped image of a sullen Alvarez menacingly grabbing a fistful of cash with the subtitle, “David Alvarez supported raising the sales tax on working families.” As Doug Porter noted on Friday, the implication is that somehow Alvarez (who was not on the council at the time) was responsible for Jerry Sanders’ failed Proposition D that would have raised the sales tax by half a cent to fund city services. While that is a disingenuous claim, the real impact of the piece comes from the caricature of Alvarez. The take away: brown people are coming to suck up your tax dollars.

It’s a clear attempt to drum up racial and class anxieties and play to the fears of white suburban voters about the specter of a Latino takeover at city hall. Much like the racially charged attacks on Obama at the national level, the Lincoln Club’s effort is designed to play to the worst in us.

Hence, while candidate Faulconer gives lip service to the needs of the “underserved” to woo moderates, his nasty friends on the right are doing everything they can to make sure that San Diego’s historically underrepresented communities stay that way by demonizing Alvarez as a threatening figure aiming to plunder your neighborhood in order to dole out largesse to his “favorites.”

While most folks are familiar with the goals and retrograde agenda of the Republican Party U.S.A., the Lincoln Club (who will do most of the heavy lifting for the negative campaign through their committee Working Together For Neighborhood Fairness in Opposition to David Alvarez for Mayor 2014) is still relatively unknown outside of political circles. As Kelly Davis noted in a recent City Beat piece on the local branch of the club:

If money equals power, the Lincoln Club wields it like no other local political organization. Its 400 members, whose annual dues provide a guaranteed source of money for the group’s political action committee, are a who’s-who of lobbyists, developers, Republican-backed elected officials (and their staff members) and high-profile business owners—the people behind Mossy Nissan, Jerome’s Furniture and Coles Carpets sit on the club chairman’s special advisory committee. Though the Lincoln Club describes itself as nonpartisan and focused on “pro-prosperity” candidates and issues, what and whom it chooses to support is almost always partisan.

As investigative journalist Matthew Fleischer tells us, the Lincoln Club has a long and influential history in right wing California politics. In addition to serving as the hit-man of the Republican Party, the club has also functioned as a king maker and was instrumental in bringing us the notorious Citizens United case:

Since the days of Richard Nixon, the Lincoln Club has been the Matrix-like ideological birthing chamber of California Republicanism, whose grandees and arbiters once guided Ronald Reagan, Pete Wilson, George Deukmejian and Arnold Schwarzenegger when their political careers were in their larval stages. That same Lincoln Club gave us the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court victory—which paved the way for Super PACs and unlimited, anonymous corporate donations—and, over the past year, had been instrumental in pushing Proposition 32 onto the California ballot.

And the ultimate goal of the Lincoln Club is far from moderate or even vaguely democratic. Simply put, it is not so much a tool of the GOP as it is a weapon of plutocratic interests bent on buying our democracy lock stock and barrel from D.C. to San Diego. As John MacMurry puts it in the LA Progressive:

The Lincoln Club . . . by opening up campaign contributions to individuals and groups who can give unlimited amounts of anonymous dollars, gets the undying gratitude of billionaires and large corporations, and the ability to buy control of any government in California—or all of them.

And for those of us who are neither billionaires nor large corporations?

It’s a lot like the old Jerry Reed song about who gets the gold mine and who just gets the shaft. And for most of us, the Lincoln Club has worked hard to make sure that not too much of the gold mine is headed our way.

Here in San Diego, the local right’s strategy is to elect Kevin Faulconer as their tool in the mayor’s office as they lie and buy their way around our representative government by funding malicious ballot measures aimed against the Barrio Logan Community Plan and the affordable housing fee enacted by the City Council. Of course this is an ironic perversion of the initiative process, which was originally devised as a way for “the people” to go around unresponsive government, and is now being used by moneyed interests in order to actually subvert the democratic process.

It’s the same old story: for them, anything that impinges on corporate power or profits for the public good is a “jobs killer” while siphoning taxpayer money from the public trough for private gain is unquestionably sound policy.

Thus the kind of San Diego Team Faulconer envisions is a city where the downtown interests have the gold and the rest of us get the shaft–and their favored mayoral candidate is the lynchpin of their strategy because they know he’ll do their bidding. In the happy 1% world of Faulconer’s friends, what’s good for the Lincoln Club is good for “all of us.”

Jim Miller

Jim Miller, a professor at San Diego City College, is the co-author of Under the Perfect Sun: The San Diego Tourists Never See and Better to Reign in Hell, and author of the novels Drift and Flash. His most recent novel is Last Days in Ocean Beach.

Hello Jim,
As a tourist visiting the grater San Diego area, I was non impressed by the transit system. My out of country tourist visitors, were expecting the same service that they get from any airport, and got nothing to their disappointment. What can David Alvarez do about this?
Robert Fischer

He can allocate more money to public transportation. Unlike European countries which have great public transportation which everyone uses, the US model is based primarily on private automobile transportation with the exception of a few cities like New York and San Francisco. In San Diego mainly poor people use public transportation, and that’s the way many Americans like it.

San Diego is notorious for having horrible public transportation. Whether or not it will get better under Alvarez’s leadership (assuming he gets elected) remains to be seen. This has been an ongoing battle since the beginning of time. The sad fact is there are many residents here who don’t want any more money allocated to improve it. In fact there are many who would like to see cuts, and I’m not just talking about elected officials but actual everyday residents. In their mind if one doesn’t have a car and/or can’t drive too bad for them.

Faulconer, my council member for seven years, has taken little initiative in that time to help repair our infrastructure, or t o help the poorest and most marginalized of our citizens. He was selected to run for Mayor by the power elite of San Diego and would, certainly do their bidding if he is in the Mayor’s office.

I have been strongly considering Kevin Falconer for Mayor. After reading the negative promotionals I keep receiveing in my mail my opinions are changing away from that thought.
I was taught to “Prove all thing and hold to that which is true”. So I listened to the voice and viewpoints YouTube as suggested in the flyer concerning a comment made by David Alvarez. The quote is taken completely out of context and thus is distorting the truth of what was said. It is my opinion that the hope by Lincoln Club is that most good folks would never look it up. I grew up in The Land of Lincoln and he would never have done that tactic. You dishonor the name Lincoln and perhaps should consider another name.
Nixon club…?
Shame on Lincoln Club for such a sad tactics! Since when do people of integrity need to resort to distortion of truth of your opponent to make Kevin look good? It has the exact opposite approach.
Dear Mr. Falconer I will still consider your canadacy based on your integrity but consider who is representing you because it shows as a reflection on you!
Respectfully a concerned San Diegan
Mike Creeden